Let the Nanotech Wars Begin

The debate over whether molecular manufacturing and nanoassemblers
are feasible has turned into a PR war. With billions of dollars of
research funding and industrial
profits at stake, both sides are taking their ideological clash to
the public. So far, Eric Drexler and the Foresight Institute own
the moral and scientific high ground. But his critics at the National
Nanotechnology Initiative hold the purse strings. And they don't play
by the same rules.

Strangely enough, Drexler’s
chief detractors are representatives of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the government program pouring
nearly $3.7 billion into nanotech research and development programs over
the
next four years. The NNI program legislated
by Congress also authorizes public hearings and expert advisory panels,
including the
American Nanotechnology Preparedness
Center to study the emerging technology's potential societal and ethical
effects. But no funds are appropriated to study Drexler's molecular manufacturing
proposals; the NNI contends that Drexler’s ideas are ‘too
far out’ to merit even a feasibility
study under the present round of funding—that they are, in fact, ‘science fiction.’

The high irony of this is, of course, that Drexler, along with
Arthur
R. von Hippel,
Richard
Feynman and Marvin
Minsky, is one of the founding fathers of molecular nanotechnology.
He practically single-handedly transformed nanotech from a gleam in Feynman’s
eye into a rigorous scientific discipline in its own right with his landmark
1992 book Nanosystems. His farsighted vision of nanotechnology centers
on the consequences of MNT, specifically molecular nanoassemblers, a
profoundly disruptive technology that, when mature, will transform almost
every aspect of human life.

Unfortunately, the NNI doesn’t approach nanotechnology
with such a long-term vision or revolutionary focus. NNI has broadened
its definition of nanotechnology far beyond MNT to include almost anything
on the scale of the ultra-small, from synthetic nanomaterials chemistry
to nanoelectronics to MEMS to bioengineering, and focused its vision
on nanotechnologies with a relatively quick payoff. Very little of the
huge research funding
bill recently signed by President Bush will go
towards enabling technologies for MNT or molecular manufacturing.

Clearly, Drexler is pleased with neither the policy direction of the
NNI, nor the unscientific tone of the criticism recently directed against
his work by NNI chief scientist Richard Smalley, whose argument concludes
that Drexler is “scaring
our children” with his vision of a powerful, transformative MNT
in the near future. When a rival panelist derisively refers to Drexler’s
Foresight Institute as a ‘religion,’ Drexler ripostes: “That’s
a slur! That’s the third slur today…This is not a scientific
discussion.”

Indeed, it is not. As evidenced by the seminar’s title, as nanotech
shifts gears from theory to applications, the tone of the field’s
policy dialogue has changed from a sober, disciplined scientific discussion
into a multi-sided, viciously competitive political and economic fray.
Huge amounts of money are at stake: not just the government research
grants,
but the
potentially enormous
profits of commercial nanotech spin-offs from the
research they
will support.

The government is also wary of the perceived scariness of some potential
consequences of MNT, such as economic dislocations caused by cheap nanomanufacturing,
formidable nanoweapons of mass destruction, and the notorious gray-goo
scenario. NNI people therefore take care to distance themselves from
any research that might cause a politically inconvenient public outcry
against nanotechnology.

Apparently this strategy includes stooping to discredit Drexler publicly,
for example by using Nobel laureate Richard Smalley to claim that Drexler’s
vision is scientifically infeasible. That makes about as much sense as
the AEC trying to ruin Einstein’s career. By attacking Drexler,
the NNI is sawing off the very limb they’re sitting on, and it’s
making them look pretty dumb.

The NNI’s no-holds-barred, hit-‘em-below-the-belt spirit
ran high at the seminar, which was attended about equally by Drexler
supporters, enemies, and fence-sitters, many of whom wondered out loud
at the feckless acrimony of the panel discussion. To his credit, Drexler
conducts himself in this highly polarized atmosphere as a gentleman
and defender of
scientific
idealism, principle and rigor, a polished presenter of his point of view.
But he also seems drawn out of his element and outflanked by better-funded
and far less scrupulous
adversaries.

Drexler’s seniority in the field and the scientific logic of his
position are unassailable, while that of his detractors is questionable.
For more detail on this, see Chris
Phoenix's and Ray
Kurzweil's analyses
of Smalley's position. Essentially the NNI’s
objection to funding Drexler is bureaucratic: because Drexler has no
experimental
work to
show for
his
theories, there
is no concrete proposal to merit a technology feasibility review.

Drexler patiently responds, “Fine. I made a detailed, concrete
proposal in Nanosystems.
So fund some basic research on molecular manufacturing based on that
proposal,” in
tones similar to a grade-school math teacher going over the rules of
long division
yet one more time.

The stock NNI reply: Drexler can’t get experimental funding because
there has not been a feasibility study, and he can’t get funding
for a feasibility study because there is no experimental work. Does this
remind anyone besides me of Catch-22?

Then the discussion moves back to whether Drexler has even made a proposal
detailed enough to base a feasibility study on. Drexler rolls his eyes,
as if to say, “Don’t these yahoos get it yet?” and
again brings up the detailed 1992 proposal for MNT he made in Nanosystems.

Like a couple with irreconcilable differences, the two sides go round
and round the same arguments, seemingly unable to agree on anything.
Certainly, Drexler’s
opposition gives the strong impression that they have not read his work
very closely, or perhaps not even read it at all. The elephant in the
room here is that, in more than a decade since Nanosystems was
published, no critic has demonstrated a serious scientific flaw in it.

Actually, all the moves in this dance were choreographed long before
the seminar, in discussions between Drexler and NNI personnel such as
Smalley, and the positions and arguments of both sides are available
online. There were substantially no new issues brought to the table in
the seminar. Actually, the most interesting part of the event was strolling
around
during the breaks, listening to attendees’ impressions of the panel
discussion.

The consensus seems to be that Drexler and his opponents are not communicating
very well, because they are speaking two different languages. Drexler
is a scientist and refuses to budge from high-minded scientific and academic
principles, and standard protocols of open inquiry and fair discussion.
The NNI is a political animal, speaking evasive bureaucratese and always
mindful of their constituents. Ne’er the twain shall meet, conceptually.

Many attendees commented on the perceived lack of principle of Drexler’s
rivals. I repeatedly heard phrases such as ‘straw-man,’ ‘circular
arguments,’ ‘bait and switch,’ ‘moving the goal
posts,’ and the like applied to the NNI position and debating strategy.
It seems pretty clear that Drexler owns both the moral and scientific
high
ground
in
the argument, though many seem to think he’s politically in over
his head, outflanked and outnumbered, and ultimately can’t win.

It may be that, in founding the potentially explosive scientific field
of nanotechnology, Drexler has grabbed a tiger by the tail. Whenever
big
money, big government
and big politics get together, things can get gnarly fast. The truth
tends to become the first casualty in any war, and the war over the spoils
of nanotech is likely to be no exception.

The most interesting comment overheard in my lunchtime pilgrimage from
table to dessert tray was, “This is all bullshit. It’s been
over ten years since Drexler showed in theory how to build nanoassemblers.
By now, the military must have a black program to develop MNT before
the Chinese or Arabs or Russians get it. This is just disinformation to throw
everybody off the
trail by making the impression that we’re not interested
in pursuing [molecular manufacturing and self-replicating nanobots].”

Given the powerful potential military applications of MNT, this idea
is credible. During the 1940s and 50s, the U.S. government publicly decried
the feasibility of nuclear fission and later, fusion, while covertly
pouring tremendous resources into nuclear weapons research. Perhaps there
is a secret nano-Manhattan Project going on somewhere.

After the seminar, I happen to bump into Drexler and have a rare opportunity
to speak with him alone. I bring up the possibility that there could
be a secret military project to develop nanoassemblers, and the current
government position in the nanotech debate is a disinformation program.

Following the briefest of pauses, Drexler looks me in the eye and replies
in the same high, clear
voice
I’d
heard him use during the panel discussion, “Those things are hard
to know about.” He still has his game face on.

David Hughes is a Senior Associate of Foresight
Institute, and a member of the Northern California
Science Writers Association. He is a versatile writer of works on hard science, computer software
and philosophy. He provides traditional and online documentation, content
development, web and publications design consulting services to businesses and nonprofits. He is also working on
Worlds of Light, a hard SF novel
about strong nanotechnology, advanced AI and consciousness. David lives in San Francisco.